370
Frenchman in Saigon or in Japan; there is nothing in the Chao Chow Convention or in any law which makes an exception in favour of such defendants in China, save only in the case dealt with in Ordinance 1 of 1851.
The whole question of Letters of Request has been recently considered at home, and here by direction of the Secretary of State. And in my reply to Your Excellency's letter of 5th November, 1907, on the subject - I informed Your Excellency that I was considering the question specially in connexion with letters of request to China. There is no reason why the same practice should not apply to China, except the practical one that correspondence with the Chinese Authorities is difficult, and for this reason therefore it seems to me, so I said above, that Article 29 of the Order in Council was drafted in its present broad language. It authorises the Court to request the Consuls to serve British subjects, and to sequest their good offices in the case of other defendants.
It was for this reason that in the case of a Chinese defendant, as in this case, the Consul has been requested to approach the Chinese Authorities to effect service.
I have annexed copies of the application and of the Letters of Request issued in this case as well as a printed form; it will be seen that, except for the substitution
370
=ırgarri eroteraɗd raw „aldatano) Taluanod and gd tkw a gulvTOR
Frenchman in Saigon or in Japan; there is nothing in the Chaɗoo
Convention or in any law which makes an exception in favour of
„Joaldus oft no rajtal ald of somerater dikw
TAJJNË SJaving a bar! I .YTABBADAN at noitanalqxe to braw eno
MAN OF 88 Tertel Laloitto aid na salida avisa sili mi mid mort
•
eidt to atalog no matbnoqɛertoo bne galaevoalb to Jidad ens ni
ton haw I randalyef sɗd to aandanslerso sild of gakvo duk .Brutaa
ada no visiofì*o me÷31¬w bar off tøft dost add to berroint
evart hinow molaevosib and,betriotri og mand I ha" .Jost,dua
.wor to bestand merid eosiq nexĠ
noqu duq ayawis ova! I motistsrytojai eɗ"
Vinnerxo naw di dauð at Ikonwoo ni “obro mrld to es BIOISTA
taðaso owd arid revon trişim 31 tærið oa
vibeonɗ mwanɓ
.eaɔstɗya tinitirk no solvısa
.[
Tagong and diguo¬da eðnsbustab raɗto no esİVISE
.elannado
.LI
Breirawoq el Jurað Bďt ,babuloai el namo broone airit ans Iml!
nt ens verið sigurosid esiw arnabnetoh saentɗ0 hrs materot dantags
Teven neo * .drpod gyrodanol edt ot eldanoma vilayoi ers anido
nevad a od hiroin algmaxe tot,mojnæð jarð bæbnetnt need svæð
dard dud jadł¬w to solvrea shave of adaabneteb rot egiter to
88630*¶ .od admuroma nolánetnon «'Izzoneð-fuzno) srid zadw at
..
aboð arð vď beniteb asexo sit ni beurat ad yam duo) midt moTT
a romarfallaci na to,eaenido a "0 1.0ɑensqab a dentsys at nacuioneri
such defendants in China, save only in the case dealt with in
Ordinance 1 of 1851.
The whole question of Letters of Request
has been recently considered at home, and here by direction
of the Secretary of State. And in my reply to Your Excellency's
letter of 5th. November, 1907, on the subject - I informed
Your Excellency that I was considering the question specially
in connexion with letters of request to China. There is no
reason why the same practice should not apply to China, except
the practical one that correspondence with the Chinese Authori»
-ties is difficult, and for this reason therefore it seems to
me, so I said above, that Article 29 of the Order in Council
was drafted in its present broad language. It authorises the
Court to request the Consuls to serve British subjects, and to
sequest their good offices in the case of other defendants.
It was for this reason that in the case of
a Chinese defendant, as in this case, the Consul has been
requested to approach the Chinese Authorities to effect service.
I have annexed copies of the application and
of the Letters of Request issued in this case as well as a
printed form; it will be seen that, except for the substitution
>
of
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.